Imagine a community's lifeline—its water supply—being threatened due to a decades-old land dispute. This is the stark reality facing Labasa residents as Nakama landowners demand over a million dollars in unpaid lease arrears, threatening to shut down the Nasarava water catchment. But here's where it gets complicated: this isn't just about money; it's a tangled web of land administration, historical boundaries, and unfulfilled promises. Tonight, a joint team from the Water Authority of Fiji (WAF), the iTaukei Land Trust Board, and the Department of Lands will meet with the landowners to present their proposal and chart a path forward. The landowners will decide tomorrow whether to accept or escalate the situation.
At the heart of this dispute are two distinct water catchments: Nasalasala and Nasarava. And this is the part most people miss: while Nasalasala operates under a formal lease managed by the Department of Lands (with the most recent payment made in September 2025), Nasarava sits outside the original historical lease boundary, creating a legacy land administration issue. WAF acknowledges the seriousness of the matter and has been working closely with stakeholders to resolve it amicably. However, the landowners argue that the Nasarava water source has never been leased by WAF or any other entity for water supply in the past 75 years, despite repeated pleas during government visits to the village.
Osea Waqainavatu, spokesperson for the mataqali Nabukarabe, emphasizes that the entire Nakama community stands united behind the decision to close the water catchment if payment isn't made within seven days from last Thursday. This raises a controversial question: Who bears the responsibility for addressing long-standing land disputes that impact essential services like water supply? Is it the government, the landowners, or a shared obligation? As tensions rise, one thing is clear: the outcome of this meeting will have far-reaching implications for both the community and land administration practices in Fiji. What do you think—is the landowners' demand justified, or should there be a different approach to resolving this issue? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
